Re: Per-type architecture (Re: [10/15] Basic value access routines)

Pedro Alves
2009-06-23T14:02:55Z

On Tuesday 23 June 2009 14:49:38, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:41:22AM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > - for values of bitfield type, the bitfield byte order (as you mention)
>
> We don't actually need the architecture for this, given the type. But
> that's only because the way we record this in types requires the
> architecture when building the type; I've seriously considered
> rearranging it so that the type was architecture neutral and the value
> architecture dependent. But it seems too fragile to touch without a
> better reason...

Would sharing of objfiles between inferiors be a reason? I can picture
GDB debugging two inferiors with (maybe slightly or not) different
gdbarchs loading the same shared object.

--
Pedro Alves